Uber is ending its services in Denmark | Hacker News Reader

Uber is ending its services in Denmark

businessinsider.com

112 pointsaedron129 comments

Uber's business model simply cannot survive in sensibly regulated markets when they have to follow the regulations.

Uber is probably better than taxi services in markets that lack basic safeguarding regulations or have questionable regulations like restricted tradable taxi medallions leading to high prices. But this is not the case in many places around the world.

I have no sympathy for Uber as a company, but (without having additional information beyond what it is provided in the article), it seems to me that a new law mas made ad-hoc to address Uber's rise specifically, not that they were already breaching existing regulation when they started operating in Denmark.

Taxi drivers are a vocal and recognizable faction, while on the other hand there is the nebulous concept of what benefits the average "consumer/citizen".

It makes little political sense to support the latter over the former.

The new law actually liberalized the market a lot and is pretty smart I think. We have had 'strict' regulation on taxis as long as I know, but the new law makes it easier to enter the market while still ensuring stuff like the drivers are trained, know first aid and pay taxes. It also manages to regulate taxi-driving as a business while not killing ride sharing. You can deduct any expenses related to a trip, and if the payment only covers costs the trip is defined as ride sharing, for which you don't have to be registered as a taxi driver.

I think it makes sense to advocate a level playing field and having a situation where two companies are in the same market but one is heavily regulated and the other is not is not fair or desirable. Uber could stay on the danish market, but choose not to because they will not be able to denounce all responsibility for their employees which is a central part of their business plan.

"I think it makes sense to advocate a level playing field and having a situation where two companies are in the same market but one is heavily regulated and the other is not is not fair or desirable."

Absolutely. I think most countries in Europe have had a rigidly regulated environment for ride hauling because simply there was no real alternative, and the aim was to prevent the average Joe to start operating as an illegal taxi, with zero control on part of the authorities.

Now that Uber, Lyft are a reality, it's more than fair to require they follow regulations as the other actors in the business, but at the same time laws should be up to date to reflect the new reality.

It seems fair to me requiring that new ride haling companies can offer the same standards of quality as normal taxis, that the drivers they are properly compensated and pay taxes.

Less so that they carry "Fare Meters", when the apps themselves offer the same functionality.

Uber is having a similar problem in Sweden. The taxi market is possibly too unregulated with two-three larger regional or national companies that focus on quality and compete on good prices, and a bunch of scammers that try to have identical cars but much more expensive fares.

Uber is only able to compete with the scammers somehow, and as they pay no tax, insurance, employment tax, social costs, etc, and use drivers accounts in the middle east for payments which probably is not a sold tax and money laundering strategy etc, it's not hard to see why.

Exactly what are you talking about? To me your comment reads like infowars compressed into four lines.

Source on that last paragraph? Uber in Sweden is like any other taxi company with taximeters and yellow registration plates.

Uber's business model simply cannot survive in sensibly regulated markets when they have to follow the regulations.

Uber could follow the regulations, charge approximately the same as a taxi, and still make a moderate profit. There's nothing about Uber's business model that says they have to be cheapest or have a monopoly. The only reason they choose not to do that is ambition (or greed if you're being less generous to them).

This is just Uber showing governments around the world that they're willing to leave a market entirely if they don't get their own way. Uber are betting on their customers becoming vocal opponents of the regulation and lobbying their government to change the law in order to allow Uber back without the rules, and for other governments to become fearful of enforcing their regulations in case they anger Uber's customers too. It might work. On the other hand, maybe people aren't actually that bothered about which particular ride company they use, and Uber's strategy won't work. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

"Uber are betting on their customers becoming vocal opponents of the regulation and lobbying their government to change the law in order to allow Uber back without the rules, and for other governments to become fearful of enforcing their regulations in case they anger Uber's customers too."

In my country, Uber doesn't have a good reputation at all. People like the convenience, but that's about it. No way people are going to lobby for them.

I'm from Copenhagen, and I'd say that's the case here too. I know lots of people who've never used Uber in Denmark, and those who have do it for the price. Taxis are easy to come by and they have waaay better service and more comfortable cars.

> On the other hand, maybe people aren't actually that bothered about which particular ride company they use

Which is indeed the case here. Why people would prefer one to another? Cheaper, or more drivers or both. Brand? Simply don't care, and Uber at this point has a notorious one. If there is demand (from both drivers and riders), I guess it take several months short to fill in the void Uber has left there.

I think ride-hailing service is meant for local companies to excel(public relations, better communication with government and compliance with regulator), Uber simply cannot enjoy the level of monopoly Google and Facebook have, because at its heart, it is not a tech-driven business.

I use national ride-sharing services like Uber or Lyft as a traveling consultant for the same reason my grandma eats at McDonalds when she goes on vacation: I know exactly what I'm getting every time I make the call. Every city has different taxi regulations; can I step into the street and hail one? Do I have to call one? Which company should I call? Can I trust them? The locals might know the answer to this, but who can I trust to ask at the airport?

I also have moderate social anxiety when I'm on the phone, which is doubled when the other person is impatient or rude. And the few times I've had to call a taxi, the dispatcher has not made me feel very welcome. It's a lot nicer to be able to call a cab and not have to talk to anyone.

Ride-hailing services going back to being locally restricted companies would destroy all of that, so I'm hoping that won't be the case. I don't want to have to guess who to call, I want to put in an order and have it delivered to me. Just because Uber is a shitty company doesn't mean national ride-hailing services won't and can't work.

> It's a lot nicer to be able to call a cab and not have to talk to anyone

That's not limited to Uber. Plenty taxi companies in the EU offer that exact service through their app. All it takes is 5 minutes of web search to figure that out. It's probably a good idea to prepare a bit before entering a country you're foreign to regardless, transportation would be the first thing I'd search for.

> Just because Uber is a shitty company doesn't mean national ride-hailing services won't and can't work.

And the legislation put in place isn't preventing any of that.

Same problem, now there are hundreds of apps to learn to navigate through. Some might show you a map some won't, some will have bugs, hidden fees etc.

>All it takes is 5 minutes of web search to figure that out. It's probably a good idea to prepare a bit before entering a country you're foreign to regardless, transportation would be the first thing I'd search for.

This is why I use Uber. I don't have to do any of that. No stress. Just land in a country and get an Uber to my hotel. Walk out of a museum and get an Uber to my restaurant. It's easy. No thinking. THAT is why Uber is successful and those local apps can't replace that.

Except you won't be able to do that in Denmark anymore per the article that this thread is about. And there's a number of other places in the world where Uber does not have coverage. Uber doesn't even tell you where they are, so you get to find that out when you get off a plane.

There's an inflection point where the "no stress" mentality goes away, and Uber might be headed there. It certainly isn't headed away from it.

Uber seems to be adding far more cities than subtracting. Just 2 years ago you couldn't use it as a world-traveling app, and now it's the closest thing to a universal taxi the world has.

You've to download the app and then hope that they are in English. If they are indeed in English you've to create an account and add your credit card information before you can call a cab.

I was in Germany recently and compared the fares quoted by both Uber and mytaxi apps and Uber came out to be cheaper by at least 5 euros on multiple occasions.

Actually I mean just within my own country. Taxi services in Madison are a lot different than ones in NYC, which is a lot different from Nashville. I wasn't even considering a language barrier.

> Uber could follow the regulations, charge approximately the same as a taxi, and still make a moderate profit.

That's what they're doing here in Berlin and I really wonder if they make a profit, especially when the competing apps are also funded by deep pockets that don't necessarily try to make direct profits.

That's the real problem - Uber has a load of investor money they can use to artificially keep a low price, establish their name, push competition out of the market by undercutting, etc. Until they start to want to make real money.

Unfortunately they're going to have to do a lot of establishing to change the associations with that name, now. Short of Kalanick being struck by a freak bolt of lightning, that seems unlikely to happen. Far from it, a place that toxic is going to keep bleeding over time.

I assure you that you could ask 100 people in Berlin and no one would have any idea what you are talking about.

Between Applebaum, Waymo, and the crash that got the Waymo suit mentioned in every article about the crash for a couple of days... well, maybe they'll hear about it sooner or later. Certainly any Uber competitors must be sitting in a room with their marketing departments and thinking about how to capitalize on this, once they're past the "Hand them lots of rope and give them space," phase.

Only the tech elite even know who that person is. Everyone I know loves Uber and we use it everywhere we go, especially when on vacation in other countries as it's easy and reliable with no need to spend an hour researching and setting up local apps and services.

I read HN regularly and I don't know what you are talking about.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/29/is-lyft-r...

You may be right, but I don't think this is all as obscure as some people would like to think. That's an article that seems to recognize that many of its readers will be familiar with what I'm talking about.

I wonder if the Walmart strategy of destroying your competition by undercutting prices can work for Uber.

Is the barrier to entry for an app-enabled personal transportation service that high?Therr are also many substitutions for the service suxh as driving one's own car, carpooling, actual ridesharing via a platform, mass transit, biking, etc. There are already open source implementations of this and ride sharing.

I apologize if this sounds misinformed, but as tech advances and platforms such as these become more mature, could we not use some of the principles established by blockchain to create a rating system that is open/transparent so that drivers and passengers can just directly transact with each other?

Personally, I like Uber/Lyft's service but I dont find the price to be a. bargain. As it is, I primarily use it for transportation if there's is a chance that I may be drinking alcohol or when parking is going to close to thr cost of a ride

> I wonder if the Walmart strategy of destroying your competition by undercutting prices can work for Uber.

Big difference though because Walmart doesn't incur a massive loss to do that.

The individual stores may, but you are right the company as a whole doesn't.

> Uber are betting on their customers becoming vocal opponents of the regulation and lobbying their government to change the law in order to allow Uber back without the rules, and for other governments to become fearful of enforcing their regulations in case they anger Uber's customers too.

And I suppose that certain markets are really going to be the driver of the customer's rallying cry. I have seen posts from different locales (typically major US cities) where people have said that hailing a cab is almost impossible. You call dispatch, and one might show up within the next hour. The cab driver could have stopped to pick up another fare while on the way to you.

Then there are places like my locale where Uber is present, but there isn't a need for it. My city is markedly not walkable. The surrounding neighborhoods are not walk/bike friendly. I used to live 20 minutes away from my office via bike, but I wouldn't dare attempt to ride a bike in from that house. No bike lanes, no sidewalks, so few grassy shoulders for when traffic gets up to 50 mph. The only feasibly way to bike to the city was to take an additional 15 minutes by cutting through neighborhoods. Public transportation is a joke. There aren't a ton of people here, and everyone has cars for the above reason - even if it's a late 80s junker with 300k miles. Calling a cab is not a gamble here. It just shows up.

In the other areas I first mentioned, I think Uber really did disrupt the cab industry in those markets. Cab companies had to give up their monopoly to compete with a mostly unregulated ride-sharing service.It was either fix your issues or lose to Uber. I don't think Uber has the worldwide (or even US nationwide) support to rely on it's customers. It's possible that some hubs will have champions for their cause, but I don't think Uber has that vocal customer base that it needs.

From a UK perspective, Uber has really sorted out a lot of problems with the taxi market.

Prior to Uber, getting a taxi involved phoning a dispatcher of your preferred firm and usually get told "it will be about 30 minutes". Then ringing back after 40 minutes had passed to enquire about it and then it turns up another 10 minutes later. And then paying about £15 for a journey that costs £5-8 with Uber nowadays, depending on traffic and surge.

Nowadays taxi firms are much better about actually getting to you quickly (and when they say they will, roughly) and charging about half as much. They're still not as cheap or quick as Uber but it has definitely improved.

Nevermind problems with only accepting cash and somehow never having change...

That's exactly what I meant in both instances. Uber is one of the few companies that actually disrupted a market where the main player had to make a major change or lose out (probably not full elimination) big time.

On the other hand, it seems like Uber's necessity is confined to hubs. I use the US as an example since both I live here and the markets are very disparate. People do use Uber here. However, there was nothing to really disrupt. I still see (as far as I can tell) just as many taxis as before. It feels more like Uber is supplementing hailing services than replacing it here. And in a lot of smaller markets like mine, I feel that it is similar.

How many markets can Uber realistically snub before it starts to become an issue?

How would they get seat sensors and fare meters into the cars?

I'm on board with things that are actually done for sensible reasons (e.g. background checks for drivers in Austin) but this is too much. I'm an adult, I can choose if I want to trust Uber or not to charge fairly.

The meter and seat sensors are there to avoid tax evasion. Not to avoid cheating.

Technically they may not be able to in Europe.

If you look at how a taxi works, I request a taxi and I pay the driver directly. Who the money I pay the driver is split is then a private deal I nor the government know nothing about nor care,

If I order an uber (for reference, I never have for I've never been anywhere that doesn't have an equally good or better taxi service) you don't pay the driver you pay uber. Uber then pays the driver and many European governments regard that relationship as one of employer and employee.

There's nothing about Uber's business model that says they have to be cheapest or have a monopoly. The only reason they choose not to do that is ambition (or greed if you're being less generous to them).

Except that greed isn't just a complicating factor to their business model; it is their business model, basically. Or more specifically -- as has been widely noted by observers; and may even be present in their own statements -- the (perceived) paramount need to obtain a globally dominant market share -- or slip quickly into irrelevance.

It's even in their name, after all: über alles. And if a few rules need to be broken -- or employees' careers/and or personal lives severely hobbled along the way -- so be it.

† A position that historically has been difficult to obtain in similar service sectors, even locally, without corruption and/or a state-enforced monopoly. But for Uber, apparently, has become a life-or-death mission to attain.

> Uber could follow the regulations, charge approximately the same as a taxi, and still make a moderate profit.

Really? Because every analysis I've seen has suggested that Uber is basically subsidizing rides with VC money until some new element (the main hope seems to be self-driving vehicles) let's them transform their business into something that could be profitable.

Mandating the use of an obsolete technology (taxi meter, when a smartphone + app + backend has the same capability) seems like sensible regulation to you ? That regulation was tailor-made to shut down Uber operations, as a favour to the taxi lobby.

Afaik a taxi-meter is an approved device, at least somewhat tamper-resistant. Smartphone + app + backend is none of these.

Is it tamper-resistant to a taxi driver driving in circles to screw over clueless tourists?

They're not even tamper resistant to clickers, which add additional pulses to the output of the tachometer the meter relies on to calculate fares.

Those are at least verifiable by 3rd parties - in Uber's case, both the driver's and passengers' smartphones should match up in terms of what route they took. I guess a sophisticated enough malicious driver could set up a GPS spoof in their car, but honestly if they can do that they're working in the wrong industry.

Depends where I guess, certainly in Asia fast-running meters are not uncommon. To say a taxi meter is secure is like doing javascript client-side validation and no server-side whilst disabling right click. And approved by who? Vetted cryptographers?

The most popular taxi cheat is to the take the long way around. Meters don't help you there. Also, meters don't show you the full trip price before you commit.

Uber could perhaps fiddle around with map data, but the history would have to show the correct origin and destination, or it would be noticed. It's trivially easy, and free, to audit against Google maps.

I don't trust Uber to be ethical, but cheating in this space would just be corporate suicide...they would easily be caught.

Who cares? Why is this the sort of thing that needs to be regulated in the first place?

When I go to a restaurant and order a 16oz steak it doesn't get weighed on a government approved scale. That's because if a restaurant rips off its customers then people will stop eating there. If Uber overcharged for rides then people would stop using them for rides.

This is textbook government overregulation.

Well it depends where you are. I spent my last vacations in Cuba, and it was a pain to have to bargain with taxis every single time, same distances will cost me anywhere between 25 and 5 dlls. I really missed uber over there, or even a taximeter, and again I'm sure that was because I was a tourist, even though I'm Hispanic myself they were able to spot me as a tourist.

> Why is this the sort of thing that needs to be regulated in the first place?

Customer protection laws are entirely normal in lots of countries. You question the need, I question why you think it shouldn't exist?

For your example, the restaurants are checked by the government. Unhealthy restaurants get warned and eventually closed. Determining if a scale is accurate on e.g. a market is another textbook regulation.

> This is textbook government overregulation.

Seems you're arguing for having companies cheat customers. What's the benefit for a country like Denmark to allow that to happen?

I'm arguing that, when it comes to taxi service (and steaks) customers are perfectly capable of protecting themselves from cheating service providers without government help.

We should have as few regulations as we can get away with as regulations almost inevitably get used in unintended ways with negative consequences. Incumbents use them to drive out upstart competition and increase costs for everyone.

At least in the UK, companies are generally required to use government approved scales for goods that are sold by weight - and Trading Standards do random audits of this to make sure they're in compliance. This has been the case for a long time because rigged scales are a very old swindle.

This is Hacker News. I feel like you should at least know that taxi meters are not reliable and the systems that Uber etc use simply are. Using GPS and navigation to ensure fair driving fees is one of the key parts that makes Uber/Lyft literally better than Taxis.

Yes and no. Where I come from... Greece more than half of Taxi-meters have been tampered.

and taxi meters can be adulterated, uber cannot.

"cannot".. Whilst a different aspect, this is certainly corrupted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13785564

I'd agree with you if the system was entirely open to audit.. but it isn't.

Regulated meters with security seals does provide the assurance... but i'm not saying it is a step forward.

I generally defend Uber, but some of their actions I do struggle with.

Uber's receipt gives you a map with times, distances and a breakdown of costs. A taxi meter gives you a total, but it has a seal of approval. I know which one gives me a sense of assurance.

Yes. Just because the smartphone + app has the same capability doesn't mean that it is the best solution - nor does requiring a taxi meter mean that a government approved app that meets all the requriements of the taxi meter cannot be approved and/or used. Maybe the taxi meters have some sort of feature that makes them more secure. Maybe the government just cannot update the appropriate systems yet to include the tech. Maybe the general public doesn't trust the information of the meter.

The point is that there are multiple reasons this is sensible regulation.

The other thing it mentioned is seat sensors. I'm not sure a smartphone app would be able to do this as well, and I'm guessing the reasoning is because the taxis haven't always acted in respectable ways and is a way to fight against money laundering.

So what are the sensible reasons? Can you provide any beyond vague speculation and "maybe"?

When the network goes down or the app backend has technical problems, the taxi fare meter will still work. It makes sure no-one gets ripped off (the passenger and the driver) and that taxes are paid correctly.

It's not fool-proof of course but I trust my local taxi's meter more than I trust Uber. This varies a lot by country and city, but I'm pretty sure that taxi meters are very reliable in Denmark.

The network going down should not affect the fare. It's not like the city map changes by the minute, and the last known price per mile is a good approximation.

This makes no sense. I open up Uber and tell my destination, and Uber tells me 87₹. I press confirm and that's it. If the network goes down it's still 87₹.

In contrast, a traditional taxi meter allows the cabbie to take a circuitous route with unsuspecting passengers. Before Uber I needed to constantly be on guard against autowales doing this to me (due to my ethnicity I'm prime ripoff target).

> I open up Uber and tell my destination, and Uber tells me 87₹.

If the network is down, your Uber isn't going to open. Yet you can hail a cab and pay with cash (or credit/debit).

Your taxi experiences are probably very different from mine, but getting scammed by a taxi driver is very unlikely where I'm from. And in my experience everything runs like clockwork in Denmark, I'd expect the situation to be very similar there.

Taxi services across the world are very different, so your experiences might be as valid as mine. But where I'm from, Uber doesn't provide anything that a normal taxi service wouldn't.

Nope - I'm not an expert. The point is that I can come up with these reasons, all of which are sensible in my opinion. I'm guessing if you want the actual reason, you'd have to speak to the officials in Denmark.

The other comment, however, gives an actual reason to require them.

Smart phones should be fine for tracking fares, even if the network goes down (assuming they were well-programmed). Especially if the customer can run his own "meter app" on his own device to verify the fare.

My objection to Uber: I prefer drivers who have a track record of not being drunk and not on drugs. I don't need the government to regulate that, but I would be willing to pay a premium for drivers who are willing to undergo some kind of occasional testing program for drugs/alcohol.

An Uber driver who gets a single passenger complaint of not having been sober is reviewed. If there are police records such as a DUI ticket to confirm the complaint, he's excluded. This is better than occasional testing.

That modern technology & database is controlled by a foreign company.

Colombia is a highly regulated market but the taxi drivers manage to modify their fare meters to charge you more (either they are accelerated or they have a switch that makes it accelerate), they lie to you about the costs (if you are not from here hey can tell you a trip that is 18 is 35, like they tried on me). In fact, it is estimated that 80% or more of the taxis here would try to rob you. I agree that Uber goes against regulations, and their new dynamic fare is a steal on its own right, but the service is much more better than cabs.

Same happened to me after a long flight to Malaysia. Going from airport to KL, meter shows 90MYR and the guy asks for 150MYR adding up tolls, night tax etc. What should I do, fight the guy for 10EUR? Note it was a licensed cab booked from the Airport counter.

Used Uber for the rest of my vacation there and it was great.

the airport counter sells you a ticket, you give the ticket to the driver. no further payment is necessary.

There are two options. The pre-paid desk upstairs or the official taxi desk downstairs where it should run on meter (you pay 2myr for the privilege of using this desk for tiny bit of blue or red paper). Either way both should be regulated, safe and not a rip off. The taxi desk upstairs often with a single operator has long queues as tourists seem to asking for sightseeing advice, their horoscope, and then wanting to pay in cent coins (that's guess, it's annoying, KL is terrible airport, after almost as long as flight taxi-ing from runway to gate to queue another 40 minutes is not my thing)

Exactly, just took the 2 MYR ticket since I had no clue how much I should prepay.

Ditto, fast running meter and surcharges that should not have applied, a kick in the teeth after using official service desk and avoiding the touts. I complained to SPAD with took about 5 minutes, with receipt, taxi number, times, etc.. and 28 days later I got:

I wish to refer to your complaint above.

2. The permit holder and driver of the vehicle were summoned to our office for an investigation regarding the complaint that your good self has lodged.

3. We wish to inform, the driver and the permit holder have been issued a warning letter and reprimanded not to repeat the offence again. If we receive another complaint about the same vehicle, a heavier penalty will be given to the permit holder and the driver.

4. We have also advised the owner of the vehicle to take the necessary disciplinary action on the driver regarding this complaint.

Thank You.

Yours Faithfully,

SHAHRIDAN ABDUL AZIZ --

Could just be a template who knows...

Probably wasted time on your behalf.

Regulation also entails that regulations get enforced. In that case that means regularly checking the taximeters.

Here in Germany taximeters get checked once per year. I never heard any complaints from anyone here about taxis trying to rob you off. If I search in German for manipulated taximeters I mostly find articles that are about foreign countries.

I paid 90 euro for a taxi ride from the airport to downtown Munich. It should have been 50 euro. I am pretty sure that wouldn't have happened with Uber or Lyft.

How forcing them to add a fare meter is a sensible regulation? You already can track the whole travel in Uber and it is FAR FAR better than having a fare meter. In a foreign city I have no idea if the itinerary chosen by the driver is sensible or not and the fare meter for sure can't do anything in this regard.

Because you can fiscalize a fare meter, not someone's phone GPS tracker module.

The meter is supposed to be inspectable to the local tax collectors who can ensure that the correct tax is paid.

The incenvives are too screwed up for this to help consumers.

If they undercharge, they get fined. If they overcharge, the tax authority gets more money.

It's almost like a bribe.

   this is not the case in 
   many places around the world.

Uber has one gigantic advantage over all local taxi services from the custormer's point of view: Uber's unified, location-independent interface. You put in your credic card once, you learn the UI once, and it works seamlessly all over the planet. (Same with AirBnB.) This is a heaven sent for the frequent international traveller.

I understand why local taxi-driver lobbies are rent-seeking with anti-Uber legislation, but selflessly it aint.

>sensibly regulated

Requiring fare meters when the price is agreed in advance is not sensible regulation.

Explain to me why having an actual physical meter and seat sensors are sensible regulation? To me, they are clearly barriers to entry that make it harder for individuals to participate in the sell side of this market. Neither are necessary to provide the service in a safe and trustworthy manner. They simply make it so people need to actually acquire special cars with the seat sensors and then go through additional bureaucratic hoops to get a physical meter installed. This is so obviously protectionism and anti-consumer, that I don't see how anyone can consider them sensible except the taxi cartel.

For some reason, Uber in Denmark was never cheaper than taxis. And this despite that practically every taxi here is a high-end Mercedes (and priced accordingly). So Uber skirted regulations and were still not cheaper than the overpriced and politically protected taxi services. Can't say that I am going to miss them. Shame though, because the taxi services here badly needs competition.

My experience is that Uber was roughly ~20% cheaper overall.

The good outcome is that the taxi companies ramped up, got out a decent app (with most of the features from the Uber app) and we got discussion and even law changes about how Taxis operate (though not necessarily all for the better).

Finland got some updates to taxi law, too, and Uber stays illegal (drivers will be prosecuted for providing an unlicensed taxi service). Sounds like a fair outcome.

This I did not understand either. I did try Uber few times in Copenhagen and instead of new Mercedes that I usually get as taxi I was picked up by some small hatchback and still end up paying pretty much the same. Also, taxi apps are good here.

Why do they need competition, if even the competition didn't manage to be better? What's the new company going to do differently?

> And this despite that practically every taxi here is a high-end Mercedes (and priced accordingly).

A Mercedes used as a taxi in Denmark is significantly cheaper than one for personal use. We have a very high tax on cars for personal use in Denmark (~170%), which does not apply to vehicles for commercial/industrial use, like taxis. So for the taxi companies, buying a taxi Mercedes costs roughly what a Toyota costs for personal use.

http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oid=2244599&vid=0&lang=us

Seems a reasonable decision by Uber to pull out..."mandatory fare meters" is a bit over the top. But, given the current PR tide, they can hardly afford any more headlines that even sound negative on the surface. They must be dying for a positive piece to be written.

Grocery stores are required to have validated scales to measure produce, how is it "over the top" for taxis to have validated meters to measure distance?

I assume the purpose is to keep passengers from being overcharged. These days, it's trivally easy to punch the route Uber calculated into Google maps, so I just don't see the purpose.

I don't think Uber is above bad behavior, but it would just be stupid of them to cheat in this area...too easy to be called out. You can audit past trips with ease. The app stores them. Denmark is also requiring in-vehicle video monitoring, which I also find over the top, but for different reasons.

For one, I think the intent of the requirement can be satisfied by alternate means. For example, like the google map that is recorded and displayed to me of every Uber trip I've taken.

How do you know the map is correct and immutable? You're essentially trusting Uber itself to keep a good record, whereas the law is designed to avoid trusting the taxi companies at all, by mandating sealed meters.

It's free and easy to use other tools to verify, and you have a past trips history. They could fiddle with maps, but changing the origin or destination points would be noticed.

Sealed meters don't force the driver to take the most efficient route either. Nor do they show the full price before you commit to the trip. Map based apps are just better than meters all around.

That's a nice thought, but tampered taximeters 100% do exist, it's not a hypothetical. On the other hand, Uber faking or altering a receipt is hypothetical.

Update: Also, if Uber is found to be cheating at some point there is a record of every ride so you can bet they will be forced to make everyone whole. Good luck getting a settlement on your random taxi ride.

Uber uses Google Maps. You can 100% trust that.

Even if Uber changed to their own proprietary map system you could still use your receipt and validate that the trip was the best route by using Google Maps yourself.

The system is very open. Taxi meters are not. I have no way of verifying that my taxi driver is charging me the correct price since meters can be gamed. Also the meter only judges distance. It can't tell when the driver takes a long route to pad out the fare. Uber will refund your money in that case but with a taxi meter you are stuck paying for a bad fare.

In addition to the good points by the sibling comments, one more I'll add: I frequently take trips in parts of Chicago that I know extremely well, and thus can vet the sanity of the routes posted, as well as sanity-check the route while en route: if something looks fishy to me on the map, I will most likely have noticed it at the time.

While this doesn't cover all rides I may take, repeated experiences with it performing correctly does build my faith that the system is working correctly and is free of guile.

Plus, all this convo overlooks that this would be an incredibly stupid place to try to systematically bilk customers: it would be very easy to spot and plausible deniability would be difficult to establish and believe, especially since it has worked for years with more or less no problems. And it has a very high virality potential when everyone would want to be checking their own trip records to see if they were scammed too.

You have this information while using Uber, in real-time, on your phone.

Since you are charged based on distance and see the price before calling the ride, it's arguably better than a "fare meter".

it is over the top. when I go to a store and buy 2 bananas, i dont really give a shit about whether the scale is validated. I want those two bananas and if the scale says its 2.19, and im fine with that, do I really care whether the scale showed the correct weight? Seriously?

With uber, its the same thing. I want to go a place. The app says it'll be X. Do I give a shit about a meter? Probably not.

This kind of regulation is retarded.

Its about "fraud". I cant be defrauded by a scale. Maybe that was different 100 years ago when this kind of regulation came up. I don't know. I wasn't there. But when Im in a supermarket looking at a piece of produce that I want to purchase and the device that figures out the price says its X dollars, I don't really care how it arrived at that price. I want to buy the thing, or I don't. God forbid it fucks me out of the 2 cents 10 extra grams would cost. Oh lord.

I'd certainly pay a premium to be able to actually get a ride instead of waiting for a fucking taxi with a pissed off driver for an hour.

would you care if every transaction you did on your bank account also fucked you out of 2 cents?

We (me in Portugal but a lot of Europe as well) have laws to prevent this kind of fraud. Gas stations, scales in supermarkets, etc all have to be 'validated' every year to make sure no funny business is going on. If you end up fucking up, the fines can/will probably make you close shop.

You may not care, but if for each litre of petrol the station sells, it pocketed one cent, we are talking thousands of euros fraud per day. If most shops do this, the customers are being defrauded of millions.

You still think it is ok?

I think it's okay in this case, with taxi meters. The Uber app shows you the route and cost before you commit to it. And, you can verify the calculation with other free tools if you want. A meter in the taxi is actually less useful. It accurately measures distance, but doesn't tell you if the driver took the shortest route.

Taxi charges continue while the car is at rest. So the shortest route doesn't mean much if the traffic is barely moving.

if every transaction on my bank account cheated me out of 2 cents, that would amount to a low single digit sum. Yes, I'd probably be cool with that.

Do you guys realize that the armageddon you are trying to paint isnt all that armageddon-y?

I mean, fraud isn't cool. But if you want to scare me, you may at least try to scare me. Losing 5 dollars in a year to "fraud" sounds more enticing than losing 70% of my income to - taxes which are totally not theft because the law says so - theft.

The difference here is with Uber, you see the route and the fare before you accept it. So, if we're trying to pull your example away from hypothetical and more towards practical, it's like getting fucked out of ATM fees every time they wish to withdraw money.

To put it simply, as we've seen, many people are happy to be screwed out of amounts well in excess of 2 cents per withdrawal.

> I want those two bananas and if the scale says its 2.19, and im fine with that, do I really care whether the scale showed the correct weight? Seriously?

You might not care for that individual transaction, but you're benefiting from the scale having been validated nonetheless.

If scales weren't validated, stores would be in an armageddon about how far they can cheat you in order to appear cheaper than other stores. The grocery market wouldn't be functional. Rather than competing on giving buyers value, they'd be competing on how far they can cheat buyers instead. Honest grocers wouldn't be able to compete. You'd effectively be paying a corruption tax on all your groceries; not just those two bananas.

I think that's less of a risk these days than it used to be. In this day of ubiquitous communications, camera phones, online reviews, and so forth, it would be easy to get caught and suffer a wave a bad PR that won't go away.

Also, a fair amount of the produce in my area is sold by piece now, instead of weight. Oranges are 50 cents a piece for example. Or pre-bagged and/or packaged for a fixed price.

Scales mattered when almost all of the products at the grocery store were weighed, but now 90% or more of the typical grocery cart is prepackaged or pre-bundled in someway, including produce. Regulating scales are an anachronism.

I'd be paying a corruption tax, instead of an actual absurd amount of taxes. The horror.

I'm being facetious but seriously. A world in which people believe that a supermarket scale has to be regulated by federal government or else - is a weird world.

Life as we know it would NOT break down just because government doesnt dabble in one tiny stupid little thing.

What is really remarkable about this is that the current minister of transport is a huge supporter of Uber, and his party have again and again explicitly promulgated their support for the company and their business model.

So it is a huge failure for Uber that they couldn't stay in the Danish marked, even with partial endorsement of the Danish government. The problem for Uber is that their business model is clearly illegal in Denmark, and so incompatible with Danish law that even a benign government can't help them.

The problem for Uber was that this benign government didn't have a parliamentary majority for the new law without the Danish People's Party who are not particularly interested in supporting Uber or its business model.

The government did as much as they could while preserving tax revenues (the new law deregulates the industry). There have been plenty of cases where older meters were hacked back in the 90's. Not requiring meters and seat sensors would have made cheating easy.

One thing that was awesome about Uber, was that you could go into a city internationally and just use one app (instead of installing new apps every city or multiple apps for one city!)

The taxi game is becoming more like the Social Media game where you have multiple platforms like Fb, Twitter, Snapchat etc each doing it's own thing.

While that's great, I have 10 different apps on my phone just to deal with Social Media.

BTW I am not suggesting that Uber not be regulated or anything of the sort, but just that, if all taxi companies start having their own apps, I won't install any (from a registration, security and ease of use point of view).

From this comment and others, it seems to me there's a business to be made creating a unified app that all taxi services can integrate with. It seems like a large momentum to overcome, but faced with extinction via uber/lyft/etc might be the catalyst to make it happen. Priceline et al made something similar happen to the hotel industry, so it seems possible.

This already exists and ironically Uber is leading the charge. https://www.uber.com/ride/ubertaxi/

It's very, very hard to get taxi monopolies onboard with something like this though. That's why Lyft/Uber had to forcefully enter the markets like they've done. The market is too corrupt for something standardized like priceline to take hold.

>One thing that was awesome about Uber, was that you could go into a city internationally and just use one app (instead of installing new apps every city or multiple apps for one city!)

This is still true. Only a few countries/cities with very authoritarian governments have blocked Uber. The expectation of using an Uber anywhere you go is still a given and the reason I use it when traveling abroad. I've never had a problem yet.

Not surprising. In highly regulated markets such as Denmark, Uber has always had a hard time. In the early days they played the "ask for forgiveness card", but being a gigantic operation now, that does not fly anymore.

In my home country Germany, Uber also essentially retreated and only has a token presence at very few cities, as the regulatory environment just does not allow the Uber economics to work.

So focusing on the markets where regulation is soft or where Uber has leverage to change regulation is the winning strategy here.

Uber's end game, if they cannot get autonomous cars to market before they run out of runway, is to license their technology to taxi's and other transportation firms. There is still a lot of money on the table for them, but probably not in their current vision for the company.

beyond the article, sad to see even businessinsider.com blocks ad-block. what a tragedy.

I'm sure there's much interesting discussion to be had over Uber's decision to leave Denmark. Unfortunately due to the advertisement banner covering 40% of the screen, I was only able to read 60% of this article.

Its popular to hate on uber right now, but we need uber and i hope it survives, the same as we needed airbnb. I had a car crash recently, and while waiting for my car to be fixed had to relay on public transport and taxis. One is slow, allot of time not available, other is unreliable ( they promise you a taxi but it never comes because thy took somebody else) and expensive.

With regular taxis the supply is limited, they will rather make smaller number of rides per day for bigger price. And that is what everybody in monopolistic position will do ( see Intel when AMD is weak, or any other example ). I dont think we should enable them to do that.

There probably needs to be some kind of regulation, government wants those taxes, but lets not cheer for uber to die.

If uber withdraws everybody will lose.

Do "WE" really need Uber? Aren't there several competing companies who behave better?

Why didn't you get a loaner or rental car?

It sounds like what you need is better public transport and taxi service. Around here they're both fine, if a bit less convineant than driving.

I disagree.

We need alternatives or modernization to current transit systems and companies; we don't need Uber.

I'm living abroad at the moment in St. Petersburg Russia, and the local taxi company's response to Uber was basically to clone Uber. People here are just as ready to summon a Yandex taxi or one from the multiple other taxi services publicly available as they are to use Uber. My last experience with a Yandex taxi was seamless - driver was to our location in a few minutes, fare was ~ 500 RUB (little under $10), no tip expected, and they made exceptions for us having multiple stops for different people.

There is nothing unique or special to Uber except the huge amount of hype and VC money behind them - just like we saw in the US with Austin, TX, Uber's model is easily replicable and scalable for local companies.

Uber is throwing its weight around and finding out that it really doesn't carry as much weight as it thinks it does, and pretty soon investors and other transit companies are going to start to capitalize on this.

As a local, this may solve your problem in St. Petersburg. But what if i am a traveller and regularly travels b/n different places in the world. Do i need to keep track of every taxi service? That will be painful. It does not mean that i support Uber as a company. I support for their global transport model. We will help you go from Point A to Point B without much hassle wherever you are in this world. That's why, if Uber dies, no one will again dare to attempt to solve this amazing problem. I am really surprised with different regulations in different countries for such a beautiful solution which they are offering. That's really a pity. :/

I agree that there is benefit to a ubiquitous service, but is this not applicable to virtually any service whenever you travel? Searching for Taxis St. Petersburg Russia provides me with the same information and taxi services that locals would use, with results in my language, phone numbers, and websites.

You really don't need to keep track of every taxi service any more than you need to keep track of every restaurant, every public transit service, or every hotel chain - the grand majority of the time, search for [service]+[location] and you will find what you need.

I do understand there is a convenience factor, but I feel the discovery aspect is being overstated.

A global transport model would be nice. But it should not rely on a single operator. Instead it should be based on a standard (like HTTP, etc) such that all taxi companies are independent and able to live up to national standards.

I can't say what parent comment exactly meant, but I suspect it wasn't about a specific company and not about how it's called, "Uber", "Yandex.Taxi", "Gett", "Lyft" or whatever else.

We surely do need a good-UX taxi service that works like Uber does. Pull a smartphone, input a location, have all information available, get car assigned and visible on the map, pay online - this sort of convenience.

> we don't need Uber

I hope that one day we won't need Uber, but here in Boston, Uber has been a blessing and a much needed catalyst of change for the corrupt, low quality, monopolistic and expensive taxi service. The licensed Taxi system here was basically a govt protected racket that needed a shakeup. Uber is the company that started the shaking.

> we need uber

debatable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com